Wednesday, January 06, 2010

Dialogue on Why Presbyterians Changed the Cup in Holy Communion from Wine to Grape Juice

This was an exchange from one of my comboxes with Presbyterian (OPC) "Pilgrimsarbour": a person with whom I have had several congenial dialogues, and whom I consider a friend. "Friendly sparring," one might say. Readers may decide which is the more "biblical" position: in conformity with biblical examples and norms. His words will be in blue.

* * * * *

Reformed Christians are also conservative Evangelical Protestants, but they believe in the "liberty of conscience," that is, the Scriptures alone have the power to bind the conscience of the believer. Therefore, they find (as one example) drunkenness to be sin, but not drinking per se.

On a somewhat related note: why, then, do Presbyterians use grape juice for Holy Communion, whereas the Bible refers to wine?

That's a good question, and there a couple of ways to answer it.Technically speaking, Jesus refers to "the fruit of the vine" in the context of the Lord's Supper, rather than "wine," as he does in other contexts. (See, for example, what He says about old wine in new wineskins, the fact that John the Baptist would not drink wine or strong drink, the wine mixed with myrrh, etc.) In this sense, grapejuice is as much "fruit of the vine" as is (fermented) wine, so most don't see it as a conflict with the Scriptures.There is, of course, another reason not to use wine:

It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. Romans 14:21

In the early years of the 20th century, Reformed and Fundamentalist folks joined forces to combat the modernism that was taking over the mainline Protestant denominations, particularly in this case the Presbyterian Church USA. Both groups were called "Fundamentalist" without distinction then, but today most Reformed people would not refer to themselves as Fundamentalist. You probably know the story of the Independent Board for Foreign Missions, Princeton Seminary and the Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy. When the OPC was formed, one of the earliest issues to resolve was what kind of denomination it would be--Fundamentalist or Reformed. Reformed thought won the day then.The thinking for Fundamentalists has been that the state of the culture and the amount of alcohol abuse demanded abstinence for the Christian. The Reformed folks did not agree, seeing this as binding the conscience of the believer to some mandate other than the Scriptures.However, they were also mindful of Romans 14:21. Today individual congregations are free to use either wine or grape juice according to their specific needs without conflicting with the Scriptures.

As for grape juice, isn't the historical reason the temperance movement of the late 19th, early 20th century? That is my understanding of it. Once it changed, then there was probably an urge to justify it on theological or spiritual grounds, as you have done, since caving into cultural movements without always stellar biblical backing is not exactly the best rationale in changing a time-honored Christian rite (which had already been ravaged by [largely] Protestant disbelief in the Real Presence).

The substitution of grape juice for wine had its origins not in the Bible, but in influences of American culture with the demands of the temperance movement in the mid-nineteenth century . . .

The change of wine in the communion cup to grape juice came about as a result of two dynamics that were working in the Church in America. First of all, as already noted, was the wrong view that alcohol is, itself, sinful. This was the precursor of audaciously changing the wine in communion to grape juice in violation of the clear institution of Christ. . . .

The second dynamic which resulted in the change of the element was a low view of the sacrament of communion. The doctrinal strength of the Church was waning and the sacraments were seen mostly as memorial “ordinances.” When the Church has a low view of the sacraments, then it is easy to be flippant with changing things around. . . .

All of the great reformed confessions of the 16th Century call for the administering of wine in communion (Belgic Confession; The Heidelburg Catechism; 2nd Helvic Confession). The Westminster Confession of Faith prescribes the use of wine (29, 6). The modern Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) manual of Church order designates the partaking of bread and wine. The London Baptist Confession of 1689 calls for the use of wine (30:5). Even the Southern Baptist Abstract of Principles of 1859 decrees that bread and wine is to be used in the Lord’s Supper. The Baptist Faith and Message written in 1925, long after the temperance movement, and long after Welch developed pasteurization for grape juice in 1868, called for bread and wine. The Church always believed the element in the communion cup was real fermented wine and never anything less.

When the proponents of abstinence and those who wished to change the element from wine to juice came along in the 19th century, some well-versed men of the Church strongly opposed the move. Theologians, such as Presbyterian A.A. Hodge and Baptist John Dragg were some of the first to be confronted with the question and were adamant in their refusal to change the elements of the Lord’s Supper to pacify the legalistic spirit of the age. . . .

It was wrong to change it, and since I had grown up in the culture of the Church that practiced abstinence, taught that alcohol was sin, and used grape juice in communion, I simply went along with tradition without questioning the practice. Not until I began studying the meaning of the sacraments did I see the serious flaw and the need to reform the practice according to what Christ intended.

Some of you, without the cultural baggage of the early and middle years of the Twentieth Century may well wonder why it is that we use Welch’s grape juice for our communion services when all of the appropriate biblical texts do indeed specifically read “wine”. The really interesting thing about the discussion of “The Fruit of the Vine” before us today is that it applies only to Americans in the specific historical context of the last 150 years.

Author Keith A Mathison, (whose recent book Given for You is being used as an outline of issues regarding the subject of communion for this series) makes the following accusation: 'The historical origin of the modern American evangelical practice of substituting grape juice for wine can be traced directly to the nineteenth-century temperance movement.'

Perhaps I have been unkind in using the word accusation? You will have to read the rest of his chapter to sense that he is impatient at having to discuss this topic at all. In fact, there is a growing consensus within Reformed circles that the use of non-alcoholic grape juices for communion is at the very least: 'quaint' or 'eccentric.'

I even found a guy from the OPC who advocates using wine and agrees that the temperance movement was what caused the change.

--- Marcus Grodi (director of The Coming Home Network, and host of the EWTN television show: The Journey Home)

I highly recommend his work, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, which I find to be thoroughly orthodox, well-written, and effective for the purpose of making Catholic truth more understandable and accessible to the public at large.

God bless you in your indefatigable labors on behalf of the Faith! Only God knows how many lives your efforts have touched with the truth. . . . God bless you and give you joy and strength in persevering in your important ministry.

There is someone out there who says what I have to say much better than I ever could -- the smartest Catholic apologist I know of -- Dave Armstrong.

--- Amy Welborn (Catholic author and blogmaster)

I love your books, love your site, love everything you do. God bless you in your work. I'm very grateful for all you've done, and for all you make available. If someone pitches a hard question at me, I go first to your site. Then I send the questioner directly to the page that best answers the question. I know it's going to be on your site.

--- Mike Aquilina (Catholic apologist and author of several books)

People regularly tell me how much they appreciate your work. This new book sounds very useful. Your website is incredible and I recommend it regularly to new Catholics.

--- Al Kresta (Host of Kresta in the Afternoon [EWTN], author of Why Do Catholics Genuflect? and other books)

Dave Armstrong's book A Biblical Defense of Catholicism was one of the first Catholic apologetics books that I read when I was exploring Catholicism. Ever since then, I have continued to appreciate how he articulates the Catholic Faith through his blog and books. I still visit his site when I need a great quote or clarification regarding anything . . . Dave is one of the best cyber-apologists out there.--- Dr. Taylor Marshall (apologist and author of The Crucified Rabbi)

I love how Dave makes so much use of the Scriptures in his arguments, showing that the Bible is fully compatible with Catholicism, even more plausibly so than it is with Protestantism.. . . Dave is the hardest working Catholic apologist I know. He is an inspiration to me.

--- Devin Rose (apologist and author of The Protestant's Dilemma, 28 May 2012 and 30 Aug. 2013)Dave Armstrong['s] website is an amazing treasure trove representing hours–yea a lifetime of material gathered to defend Catholic doctrine. Over the years Dave has gathered the evidence for Catholic teaching from just about every source imaginable. He has the strength not only to understand the Catholic faith, but to understand the subtleties and arguments of his Protestant opponents.--- Fr. Dwight Longenecker (author and prominent blogmaster, 6-29-12)

You are a very friendly adversary who really does try to do all things with gentleness and respect. For this I praise God.--- Nathan Rinne (Lutheran apologist [LC-MS] )

You are one of the most thoughtful and careful apologists out there.

Dave, I disagree with you a lot, but you're honorable and gentlemanly, and you really care about truth. Also, I often learn from you, even with regard to my own field. [1-7-14]

--- Dr. Edwin W. Tait (Anglican Church historian)

Dave Armstrong writes me really nice letters when I ask questions. . . . Really, his notes to me are always first class and very respectful and helpful. . . . Dave Armstrong has continued to answer my questions in respectful and helpful ways. I thank the Lord for him.

--- The late Michael Spencer (evangelical Protestant), aka "The Internet Monk", on the Boar's Head Tavern site, 27 and 29 September 2007

Dave Armstrong is a former Protestant Catholic who is in fact blessedly free of the kind of "any enemy of Protestantism is a friend of mine" coalition-building . . . he's pro-Catholic (naturally) without being anti-Protestant (or anti-Orthodox, for that matter).

---"CPA": Lutheran professor of history [seehis site]: unsolicited remarks of 12 July 2005

I am reading your stuff since I think it is the most thorough and perhaps the best defense of Catholicism out there . . . Dave has been nothing but respectful and kind to me. He has shown me great respect despite knowing full well that I disagree with him on the essential issues.

Dave has been a full-time apologist for years. He’s done much good for thousands of people.

You have a lot of good things to say, and you're industrious. Your content often is great. You've done yeoman work over the decades, and many more people [should] profit from your writing. They need what you have to say.--- Karl Keating (founder and director of Catholic Answers, the largest Catholic apologetics organization in the world; 5 Sep. 2013 and 1 Jan. 2015)

Whether one agrees with Dave's take on everything or not, everyone should take it quite seriously, because he presents his arguments formidably.

I like the way you present your stuff Dave ... 99% of the time.--- Protestant Dave Scott, 4-22-14 on my personal Facebook page.

Who is this Dave Armstrong? What is he really like? Well, he is affable, gentle, sweet, easily pleased, very appreciative, and affectionate . . . I was totally unprepared for the real guy. He's a teddy bear, cuddly and sweet. Doesn't interrupt, sits quietly and respectfully as his wife and/or another woman speaks at length. Doesn't dominate the conversation. Just pleasantly, cheerfully enjoys whatever is going on about him at the moment and lovingly affirms those in his presence. Most of the time he has a relaxed, sweet smile.

--- Becky Mayhew (Catholic), 9 May 2009, on the Coming Home Network Forum, after meeting me in person.

Every so often, I recommend great apostolates, websites, etc. And I am very careful to recommend only the very best that are entirely Catholic and in union with the Church. Dave Armstrong’s Biblical Evidence for Catholicism site is one of those. It is a veritable treasure chest of information. Dave is thorough in his research, relentlessly orthodox, and very easy to read.

Discussions with you are always a pleasure, agreeing or disagreeing; that is a rarity these days.

--- David Hemlock (Eastern Orthodox Christian), 4 November 2014.

What I've appreciated, Dave, is that you can both dish out and take argumentative points without taking things personally. Very few people can do that on the Internet. I appreciate hard-hitting debate that isn't taken personally.

--- Dr. Lydia McGrew (Anglican), 12 November 2014.

Dave Armstrong is a friend of mine with whom I've had many discussions. He is a prolific Catholic writer and apologist. If you want to know what the Catholic Church really believes, Dave is a good choice. Dave and I have our disagreements, but I'll put my arm around him and consider him a brother. There is too much dishonesty among all sides in stating what the "other side" believes. I'll respect someone who states fairly what the other believes.

Recommended Catholic Apologetics Links and Icons

Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic

Orthodoxy & Citation Permission

To the best of my knowledge, all of my theological writing is "orthodox" and not contrary to the official dogmatic and magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. In the event of any (unintentional) doctrinal or moral error on my part having been undeniably demonstrated to be contrary to the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, I will gladly and wholeheartedly submit to the authority and wisdom of the Church (Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Timothy 3:15).

All material contained herein is written by Dave Armstrong (all rights reserved) unless otherwise noted. Please retain full copyright, URL, and author information when downloading and/or forwarding this material to others. This information is intended for educational, spiritual enrichment, recreational, non-profitpurposes only, and is not to be exchanged for monetary compensation under any circumstances (Exodus 20:15-16).